Whoops! 1 star Euro NCAP...

"SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media" (silentbutnotreallydeadly)
12/09/2018 at 00:04 • Filed to: None

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

DISCUSSION (18)

Spanfeller is a twat > SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media
12/09/2018 at 00:11

I mean.... my stinger got a 3 star rating.

Variance > SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media
12/09/2018 at 00:15

Primarily due to the fact that it doesn’t have lane-keeping assist or automatic br aking, which is kind of a retarded thing to ding it so harshly for.

https://jalopnik.com/the-2018-jeep-wrangler-bombed-parts-of-europes-car-safe-1830876712

SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media > Variance
12/09/2018 at 00:37

And yet:

“ In its comments on the adult protection crash testing, Euro NCAP’s engineers criticised the structural integrity of the Wrangler, describing the bodyshell as unstable.

They said the join between the A-pillar and trans-fascia beam had been damaged in such a way that indicated it would not be able to withstand higher loads. The footwell, it said, had “reached the limits of its structural integrity”.

In the offset test, driver chest protection was rated as weak, while leg protection was marginal.

In the full-width crash test, the rear passenger protection was rated as poor – the lowest rating – while driver chest protection was marginal.”

And FCA’s response?

“ FCA said the rugged body-on-frame vehicle was engineered for the “most demanding conditions” – off-roading – and that “testing protocols that apply exclusively to urban scenarios may not align with such a vehicle”.”

So FCA doesn't expect to sell Wrangler into urban areas? Wow...

SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media > Spanfeller is a twat
12/09/2018 at 00:41

True. But did they call the structural integrity of the Stinger body into question at the same time? Nope. It was all down to lack of active safety aids not questionable engineering choices...

Spanfeller is a twat > SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media
12/09/2018 at 00:53

true! Its kind of sad but expected; making a safe body on frame vehicle is hard, specially when you need to sacrifice a lot of design in the name of style

winterlegacy, here 'till the end > SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media
12/09/2018 at 01:07

People are stupid. They’ll buy whatever the hell they want just to drive it under 25mph in rush hour traffic because cars are a status symbol.

ranwhenparked > Spanfeller is a twat
12/09/2018 at 01:17

Well, the Panther cars got some of the highest possible ratings even late in life (they wouldn’t do as well under modern conditions, but NHTSA quadruple 5 star in the late ‘00s was decent for the time).

The trouble is the compromises inherent in delivering the kind of vehicle Wrangler buyers want. Half doors that are removable, no roof or detachable hardtop, a windshield frame that accommodates the windshield being lowered. The actual body shell itself is a pretty minimal structure, basically a low tub.

Spanfeller is a twat > ranwhenparked
12/09/2018 at 01:24

I think part of the bad rating was the windshield being so close to the steering wheel? (and I bet the chest protection issues have to do with where the seatbelt is)

Variance > SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media
12/09/2018 at 01:24

Fair enough. I’d imagine that a major factor is that the doors provide very little structure, since they have to be removable. I’m surprised at the mention of a-pillar integrity, however, when the thing is practically a damn roll cage.

facw > ranwhenparked
12/09/2018 at 01:51

Panthers were pretty mediocre on side-impact tests late in their life. It’s tough to expect much from such an ancient design. Presumably they only did well in front impacts because they had miles of hood in front of the passenger cabin, leaving lots of room for crumple, but that wouldn’t be ideal for a J eep.

facw > Variance
12/09/2018 at 01:52

I assume it’s good in a rollover but is weaker when stressed from other angles.

ranwhenparked > facw
12/09/2018 at 04:01

That was a big factor in being discontinued when they were, Ford would have had to do a lot of re-engineering to meet the new side impact standards, which it wasn't worth doing on body shells dating from 1992 (Crown Vic) or 1998 (Town Car).

pip bip - choose Corrour > SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media
12/09/2018 at 05:19

still better than the Fiat Panda with zero stars

SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media > pip bip - choose Corrour
12/09/2018 at 05:36

Hell yeah.

SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media > Variance
12/09/2018 at 05:42

Have a really good look at the top of the A pillar and the roof in the lead image...and then get back to me.

duurtlang > pip bip - choose Corrour
12/09/2018 at 08:16

That too was mostly due to those bullshit ‘safety’ systems, in the actual crashes it wasn't horrible at all . Additionally, the Panda is an ancient design and a new one costs, what, a third of what a base Wrangler costs?

Variance > SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media
12/09/2018 at 12:21

You missed my point. What I meant is that I’m surprised the A-pillar was a failure point, since the structure is practically a roll cage. The panels you’re referring to are removable, and are not structure, so the buckling indicates that the structural member underneath failed somewhere. In the picture below, you can see that it’s not an insignificant member, hence my surprise. As facw said above, it’s possible that they prioritized roll-over protection over everything else.

Kinja'd!!!

SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media > Variance
12/09/2018 at 16:01

True... actually it wasn’t just the A pillar. It was the ju nctions with the beam that runs behind the dash and the A pillar and that beam itself . But since that is technically the leading edge of the roll cage...one truly wonders if a roll over at speed is something it could survive.